In some countries, secondary schools aim to provide a general education across a range of subjects. In others, children focus on an arrow range of subjects related to a particular career.
Which do you think is appropriate in today’s world?

In some countries, secondary schools provide a general education across a wide range of subjects. Other countries offer a much narrower range of subjects which are related to a particular career. I think the trends is most students would spend more time on fewer areas to increase the chances of having a successful career.

With the more liberal approach in which students are exposed to a wide range of subjects, students often acquire other areas of interest than those they might have had originally. For example, a student who may have originally been interested to study to become a doctor might find that he is more interested in becoming a writer when he is exposed to those subjects in a secondary school that provides a general education. So, those who argue for schools to offer a wider range of subjects will maintain that young students should be exposed to a larger range of subjects before making life decisions regarding the pursuit of a career.

On the other hand, the schools offering a narrower and more specific range of subjects will maintain that all of those non-related classes are non-essential, maybe even a waste of time. For example, if a person wants to study to be an accountant, there are fewer benefits of requiring him to take a biology course.

Today’s world is a specialized world and it is understandable why many secondary schools are now focusing on a narrower path of subjects in training students for future careers and professions. Although some students will benefit from a wider selection of subjects in determining a career path, most students will opt for the fastest and most direct path available.