In recent years, there has been growing interest in the relationship between equality and personal achievement. Some people believe that individuals can achieve more in egalitarian societies. Others believe that high levels of personal achievement are possible only if individuals are free to succeed or fail according to their individual merits. What is your view of the relationship between equality and personal success?

Sample 1:

In recent years, there have been a number of everyday problems that people in big cities have to cope with. This essay will discuss two major problems, pollution and information overload, which I believe should lead governments to encourage people to move to regional areas.

These days, increased levels of pollution have been a great cause for concern among residents of big cities. Due to high volumes of traffic, large quantities of pollutants are being released into the atmosphere, causing the degradation of air quality, which is said to be a significant contributor to various types of respiratory disease, such as lung cancer. Additionally, people in big cities are being bombarded with too much information from the media, including TV, social media, and advertising, with a large proportion of this information being fake or exaggerated. This can lead to confusion or, in some cases, social anarchy.

In my opinion, governments should do what they can to encourage city residents to move to regional areas. Firstly, it will reduce the number of vehicles in cities, which will definitely reduce the levels of air pollution, which is hazardous to the health of citizens. Furthermore, fewer people living in big cities will relieve the pressure on the housing supply, where many people are forced to live in small, uncomfortable spaces. Studies have shown that people’s living spaces have a direct impact on their mental health and how they perform at work.

In conclusion, severe air pollution and a bombardment of information are among the most serious problems facing city residents nowadays, and personally, I feel that authorities should encourage people to relocate to other areas to live.

Sample 2:

It is true that nowadays city residents have to encounter a large number of problems, especially those concerning environmental and social factors. However, encouraging people to migrate to smaller provincial towns, in my opinion, is not a viable solution to these problems.

As living in a metropolis, people are confronted with high level of air pollution, which is caused mainly by the exhaust fumes released into the atmosphere from petrol-driven vehicles. The more populated the city is, the higher the demand for traveling becomes, and as a result, the higher the level of air pollution will be. Living in this environment for a long time is supposed to be detrimental to human’s health as polluted air is the main contributor to respiratory diseases. Another problem involves social aspects such as the issue of unemployment. As many people moving to big cities do not have any skills or qualifications, they are unlikely to find a job. This higher unemployment rate can give rise to the increased criminal activities threatening inhabitants’ life.

Since dwelling in urban centers can have negative impacts, some governments tend to encourage the citizens to relocate to smaller regional towns, but I do not think this will be effective. The first reason for my belief is that this policy cannot guarantee a reduction in air pollution because people still have to commute to their workplace, which is usually located in city center. Indeed, living far away from cities means that people even have to travel a much longer distance to work, which, in fact, can increase the amount of exhaust emissions. The second reason is that finding jobs in the countryside is certainly not easier than in urban areas. Job opportunities in these places are much lower and people usually have to do low-paid jobs if they work in smaller and less developed towns.

In conclusion, it is obvious that living in big cities can create a number of problems, but encouraging people to migrate to suburban areas is, in my opinion, totally not a viable measure at least when it comes to addressing the problems concerning pollution and unemployment.

Sample 3:

It is true that people in major cities are confronting a number of problems in their routine life. This essay will discuss some of these problems and explain the writer’s view that citizens should be encouraged to relocate to the countryside or regional towns.

The urban population is grappling against two main problems out of many. The first issue is the lower quality of life due to the increasingly heavier burden on the existing urban infrastructure. This is because rural immigrants in pursuit of employment opportunities keep inundating the downtown areas of most major cities. For example, most schools and hospitals located in XYZ city are frequently overloaded, making these services inaccessible to the majority of people of lower classes. The second issue is the traffic jam due to the burgeoning car ownership. Arguably, cars take up more space than a motorbike while its capacity to accommodate passengers is far inferior to that of a bus. This weakness results in bumper-to-bumper traffic, particularly in downtown areas where many drivers have to inch along to get away from the terrible traffic.

I think government should encourage citizens to move away from major cities. This is due to the fact that this would relieve the current pressure on the infrastructure. Fewer people would need public services such as hospitals or schools and the roads would be more spacious, ensuring a smooth traffic flow with its resultant fewer accidents for city dwellers. In addition, the resources in the countryside or other less developed regions would be better exploited as there might be available workforce there. For instance, there would be more laborers during harvesting time in the countryside, or skilled or knowledgeable people would help with the construction work in smaller regions, spurring the growth of the local area as well as the nation as a whole.

In conclusion, there are many problems that people in cities are facing, and it is advisable that government encourage the residents to consider relocation to smaller regional areas with a view to solving these issues.

Sample 4:

It is true that nowadays people are shifting to larger cities. There are several negative consequences of this moot issue, and to cope with the current problems, the authorities should encourage individuals to move to smaller cities or even to the countryside.

To begin with, an enormous number of people create problems. One negative consequence is that the urban population would go on increasing and cause housing problems. This leads to the creation of underdeveloped slum areas, where underprivileged individuals must live in poor living conditions like lacking medical care or even drinking water. Another issue is the traffic jam due to the burgeoning car ownership. Arguably, cars take up more space than a motorbike while its capacity to accommodate passengers is far inferior to that of a bus. This weakness results in bumper-to-bumper traffic particularly in downtown areas where many drivers have to inch along to get away from the terrible traffic.

Governments should take steps to move a certain number of city dwellers to less populated areas. The main reason is that shifting people to towns or even the countryside helps to decrease the unemployment rate. This is because as more and more people apply for the same position within a company, it may intensify the competition among employees, making it significantly more difficult to be chosen. Towns, however, due to industrialization, are now able to provide different jobs for engineers or officers in new factories. Therefore, by encouraging job seekers to move to these newly developed areas, the government can lower the number of unemployed individuals in cities.

In conclusion, an increasing number of people living in cities certainly creates housing problems and traffic congestion, and governments should encourage its citizens to migrate to towns.

Sample 5:

More and more people live in cities today than at any point in the past and this trend will likely continue in the future. This has resulted in many problems including extreme overcrowding and governments should take measures to make living outside cities more attractive.

There are a wide range of drawbacks associated with the rise of modern cities but one of the most obvious issues is related to population density. The large number of people crammed into a relatively small area has caused expensive housing, increased traffic and severe pollution. For example, apartment prices in mega-cities like Tokyo and New York have soared to the point where only the wealthiest inhabitants can afford decent living standards. Regardless of financial status, all city dwellers have to deal with more and more traffic jams as the population increases while the area of cities remains fixed. Finally, all these people living and travelling in one place puts a tremendous strain on the environment and some cities, like Beijing in China, have become dangerously polluted.

In my opinion, governments have a duty to encourage citizens to move to more rural areas. If cities continue to expand unabated then the above problems will only get worse. We might one day find ourselves living in densely packed, heavily polluted cities that resemble scenes from a dystopian science fiction film. In order to prevent this from happening, the government can give tax breaks to companies that choose to locate offices and production facilities outside the city. This will provide more jobs for people who are willing to live in the countryside.

In conclusion, the concerns related to overcrowding in cities can and should be somewhat countered by governments incentivising living in rural areas. If this is done then we may still face problems related to cities in the future, but at least they will not be as serious.

Sample 6:

Residing in metropolitan cities has been stimulating some crucial issues in daily activities. Congestion and air pollution are problems related to living in big cities. Thus, these issues have to be tackled by governments through plausible actions such as enhancing numerous public transportations and controlling the price of basic needs instead of encouraging societies to relocate to smaller regional towns.

Societies face many issues in metropolitan cities as traffic jams and quality of air pollution. In big cities, some roads are dominated by private cars, then the number of people using these private cars is higher than in other cities. As a result, there is a phenomenon like congestion in the road that can occur with long duration. Mostly, people who are workers have to go to office and back home regularly using private cars. This situation has a bad impact on utilizing time because they spend more time just on the road and have a chance of becoming late to go to office. Another problem that has influenced widely on people is reducing air quality. When individuals live in larger cities is a risk to the respiratory system, an individual usually takes breath frequently which contains more emissions produced by private cars. Thus, individuals are able to get some diseases such as asthma.

What authorities should do is to deliver better public transportation. These facilities have to consider integration on reaching some ways, an efficiency of time and cost of transportation. If the government ponders this solution, individuals will use this type of transportation. For instance, after the government applied an integration of public transportation in Bandung, societies directly used public transportation. Therefore, the number of private cars has dropped.

To sum up, congestion and quality of air quality are common issues in metropolitan cities. Considering encouraging relocation to smaller cities is not the best solution, but governments can tackle some problems regarding living in metropolitan cities through improving of public transportation.

Sample 1:

The debate over whether university students should have the freedom to study subjects of their choice or be confined to those deemed more utilitarian has long been a contentious issue. In this essay, I will examine both viewpoints and argue that granting students the liberty to pursue their passions and interests is vital for fostering creativity, and a love for learning that ultimately helps build individuals who do better in their careers and contribute more to society.

On the one hand, proponents of teaching useful science subjects at the tertiary level argue that it promotes individual interests in education and skill development. Numerous research and data show that a practical approach to education is important in an ever-changing job market driven by technology and scientific advancements. In this modern era when the job market is highly competitive, it is essential to equip students with skills that align with future career opportunities. A recent study conducted by the University of Illinois shows that encouraging subjects related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) can better prepare students for the demands of the job market, where expertise in these fields is highly sought after.

On the other hand, advocates of allowing students to study whatever they like believe that this approach promotes intrinsic motivation, as students are more likely to be enthusiastic and engaged when studying subjects that align with their interests. This passion can drive them to excel and explore the subject matter in greater depth. Additionally, allowing students to follow their passions nurtures a love for learning, making education a fulfilling and lifelong pursuit. When students are free to choose their academic path, they become active participants in their own education, leading to a more meaningful and empowering learning experience. As a result, the university builds leaders not just workers. Those well-rounded individuals are more adept in their professional life and help society flourish.

In conclusion, granting university students the freedom to study subjects of their choice is essential for nurturing individual growth, creativity, and lifelong learning. Allowing students to follow their passions empowers them to take ownership of their education, leading to more meaningful and fulfilling academic experiences. It is expected that universities would consider the benefit of this approach in education and help build a prosperous and thriving nation.

Sample 2:

Whether university students should study subjects of their own choice or should they be obliged to study career-oriented subjects like technology and science is a widely debated issue. Both of these views have arguments for and against them. This essay delves into both views and expresses an opinion that tertiary education should grant freedom to its students when it comes to the subject they want to study.

On the one hand, many contend that the university authority must consider the consequences of letting students choose their subjects and offering a wide range of subjects that has little employability benefits. A recent study shows that a predefined syllabus at a university bound a student to study regularly and prepare for the exam while the freedom to take any subject or major they like dramatically increases the number of dropout students. This is an alarming outcome, and this is why the university authority needs to think twice before implementing the policy. Furthermore, the development of a nation, these days, highly depends on a technologically sound workforce and universities should yield such a workforce for the country. From this perspective, it seems quite logical for universities to teach technology and science-related subjects to most of their pupils.

On the other hand, some opine that a university is the highest citadel for education and helps build the next generation who would lead the country. In this regard, the education and teaching policy of the university affects the whole nation. When students at the university are given certain freedom while picking their majors, it helps create all-rounded individuals who are ready to lead the nation. Forcing them to study some selected subjects for future employment would make them become workers for offices, not leaders for the country. They also express that letting them study a wide range of subjects, including history, arts, commerce and so on, would make them far more knowledgeable and prepared to take on future challenges. Society needs artists, filmmakers, writers, journalists, politicians and so on, and not only scientists, doctors and engineers.

To conclude, universities have to consider the pros and cons of any policy adopted including whether the students are free to pick their subjects or not. Personally, I believe that letting university students prefer their subjects has far more benefits and seems more logical in a broader sense.

Sample 3:

University students will be leading different important sectors in a country in the near future, and hence their education is one of the most important aspects. It is often debated how much freedom they should be given while choosing the subjects they study. Personally, I believe that they should have the freedom to pick subjects within a prescribed syllabus, not whatever they like. This would ensure a balance in maintaining a well-rounded education and their future employability.

From one perspective, the freedom of selecting subjects at the university would make education more effective and passion oriented for learners. They would not be forced to study subjects that they have no interest at all. Though technology-related subjects are quite important, students would not learn that much if they are forced to do so. For instance, if we force a learner to learn to code on a computer while her interest is in literature, it would not bring favourable results. Thus, a student should be given the freedom to pick the subjects she likes, especially for university students.

From another angle, offering absolute freedom to pick subjects is not a good idea for university students. This will often lead to situations when students will not have sufficient knowledge of important aspects that are crucial for their careers. Some students would misuse this facility and pick only easy subjects in different semesters. It will also lead to a haphazard situation as most of the students would like to study the same subjects and the university authority would not be able to offer these courses to all.

To conclude, certain freedom while picking subjects at the university level is helpful for the overall development and knowledge enhancement of students. However, absolute freedom would make the outcome worse. Therefore, universities should develop a well-rounded syllabus and give some freedom to learners to pick subjects from this prescribed syllabus.

Sample 4:

While some citizens believe that university students should enjoy the freedom to study subjects that they are interested in, others disagree with it and opine that they have to study subjects that will be useful for their future and career. In this essay, I will explore both perspectives and opine that universities should teach learners subjects that have practical values and employability.

Some believe that allowing tertiary students to choose subjects fosters their passion and helps them thrive academically. To illustrate, my brother, Luce, who always had an interest in analysing data and numbers, was offered a seat in political science at a university. He got admitted to that major but did very poorly. After two semesters, when he got admitted to a private university and took statistics as a major, he was one of the best scorers in his class. Thus, it is evident that allowing learners to choose their majors and subjects has a significantly positive impact on their performance.

From the opposite point of view, many people feel that college and university students should learn subjects that would help them get prepared for future careers. Thus, they advocate for subjects that are related to technology and science considering the present job markets. Based on research carried out by the Statistics Center in Semarang, it is evident that technology, engineering, mathematics, physics and science dominate the job sectors and students from those majors have far better career prospects than majors from art faculties. Therefore, they advise that universities should teach those subjects to their students so that they can adapt to future circumstances and make themselves ready for professional life

After analysing both views, it can be concluded that although people should enjoy some freedom to choose their major in university and college, it is a wise decision to study subjects that can be utilised in their future and that can prepare them better for their future career.

Sample 5:

Some people feel that all college students should study subjects they are interested in, while others claim that only the ones that will benefit their future should be allowed. I agree with the former viewpoint because students can increase the likelihood of having a successful career if they study subjects they like.

On the one hand, it is a good investment for students to study courses that will be useful in the future. Many people take on huge student loans to go to college. By earning a technology-related degree, for example, they can increase their chances of getting high-paying jobs, since tech giants such as Google and Facebook have high demand for this type of talent. In this way, they can pay off their debts and even go on to live a comfortable material life. However, I think not everyone is talented in technology. If they are forced to study related disciplines, they may fail to graduate, which would be a great waste of their college loans.

On the other hand, those pursuing subjects they have a passion for are more likely to succeed in their careers. When a student is truly passionate about what they study, they will put in more effort than their peers, and be more likely to become expert (Here, "expert" is an adjective.) in those subject areas. Therefore, I think all university students should have the freedom to pursue their passion in college so that every one of them can have the opportunity to become successful in the career they love.

In conclusion, although studying disciplines that will be useful in the future may be a good investment, I believe all students should follow their passion when choosing a major because this can improve their chances of career success.

Sample 6:

Modern technology requires graduation. Some argue that institute students should study their favourite disciplines or ones that will assist them in the future, including science and technology. However, both viewpoints along with my preference will be explained further.

On the one hand, some individuals believe that colleges should enable students to study whatever interests them, since this would allow for more investigation of many topic areas. Moreover, if they study what they like, they will pursue a job in their field of passion. Babaria University, for instance, allowed students to choose their own courses; consequently, many began pursuing their passions as vocations. Therefore, institutions should let students choose their own courses since it will be advantageous to their careers.

On the other hand, however, institutions should teach technical subjects that are advantageous for the students' futures. For a brighter future, it is necessary to educate oneself on the latest technologies, given that their prevalence is growing daily. For example, according to a survey, a multinational corporation recruited those students with a technical background; as a consequence, the students had greater employment. Therefore, to ensure the future, technological disciplines must be excellent.

My opinion is that allowing students to choose their own subjects to study not only enables them to pursue their passions, but also encourages them to explore the entire field in order to learn more about their areas of interest, which is advantageous because it will provide them numerous experiences. Therefore, students should select their own area for a better job and a more fulfilling life.

In conclusion, despite the fact that technical courses are beneficial, students should choose topics depending on their career aspirations for happiness and stay motivated to work.

Sample 7:

Graduation is the most important requirement to compete in the modern technological environment. Some people continue to debate whether all institute students should study their favourite courses or simply those topics that would benefit them in the future, such as science and technology-related subjects. Nonetheless, both opinions and my own will be examined further.

Firstly, according to some people, colleges should permit their students to choose their favourite subjects. Since students are pursuing their passion, pupils are granted independence and live without tension. For instance, a survey illustrates that students who pursued their passions had less stress than other classmates. Hence, universities’ permission gives students health benefits as well.

Secondly, others believe that universities should only let students study technical topics since they are advantageous for the future. Despite the fact that it should rely on the individual's preference, technical disciplines offer greater advantages since they are in high demand due to technological advancements. According to their history, for instance, a reputable corporation chose students with a desire to get more knowledge of technology. Therefore, technological disciplines are vital for the advancement of the future.

In my viewpoint, learners should follow their passion as it is very important for their mental health. In addition, if they learn subjects according to their interest, then they will never get tired of their work and always work happily. Therefore, students should always select subjects wisely for their future.

To conclude, although both have different aspects, learning an interesting course is always advantageous for learners' future and happy life. 

Sample 8:

In recent times, education has become more essential to compete in this modern world. Some individuals believe that students should be allowed to choose their own subjects; while others opine that colleges should solely teach technical subjects. My opinion along with both perspectives will be explained further.

On the one hand, students should choose their courses since it increases their motivation and autonomy. In addition, it motivates students to study more and explore new topics. If students research an area of interest, then they may be more certain of their decision and create a cheerful and motivated atmosphere. Hence, a learner's decision creates an atmosphere conducive to their desire to learn.

On the other hand, individuals believe that children would benefit more from learning science and technology related topics. Moreover, technology is advancing day by day, resulting in a high need for technological sectors. An article proved, for instance, that people in technical occupations earn more than those in other sectors and advance their careers. Thus, for a better lifestyle and to be competitive, technical topic knowledge is important.

In my opinion, Universities should educate students in technological courses since it is not only important for their careers, but also enriches their lives. Aside from this, when students choose their own subjects, they may make incorrect selections. Therefore, technological knowledge is vital for competition and a higher quality of life.

To conclude, despite the fact that interest may simplify their lives, technical knowledge is necessary to understand the technological world and earn more money.

Sample 9:

People have different views about how much choice students should have with regard to what they can study at university. While some argue that it would be better for students to be forced into certain key subject areas, I believe that everyone should be able to study the course of their choice.

There are various reasons why people believe that universities should only offer subjects that will be useful in the future. They may assert that university courses like medicine, engineering and information technology are more likely to be beneficial than certain art degrees. From a personal perspective, it can be argued that these courses provide more job opportunities, career progression, better salaries, and therefore an improved quality of life for students who take them. On the societal level, by forcing people to choose particular university subjects, governments can ensure that any knowledge and skill gaps in the economy are covered. Finally, a focus on technology in higher education could lead to new inventions, economic growth, and greater future prosperity.

In spite of these arguments, I believe that university students should be free to choose their preferred areas of study. In my opinion, society will benefit more if our students are passionate about what they are learning. Besides, nobody can really predict which areas of knowledge will be most useful to society in the future, and it may be that employers begin to value creative thinking skills above practical or technical skills. If this were the case, perhaps we would need more students of art, history and philosophy than of science or technology.

In conclusion, although it might seem sensible for universities to focus only on the most useful subjects, I personally prefer the current system in which people have the right to study whatever they like.

Sample 10:

Some people have proposed that university students should be put to practicing what they love in their areas of specalization. However, there are those who argue that students should be limited with what they pursue of options such as science and technology which will be useful in the future. In this essay both arguments would be discussed. However, I believe in the first view.

Proponents of the idea that students should be allowed to pursue interests of their choice argue that enabling students to do this improves performance since the child will approaches a subject with zeal. For example, a history-inclined student be allowed to study it and not be forced to undertakes engineering because his or her performance depends on the interest he or she has. Also, this perspective creates job satisfaction in the long run. As a career spans a rather large part of one’s life, it becomes important to have an acute interest or passion for or in what one is doing.

However, some people have argued that students should be guided towards sectors such as science and technology as they are considered to hold a better future outlook. This viewpoint is based on the observation of the high level of demand for workers in the given sphers at the moment. For instance, it is quite promising to seek employment in these professions as, as a rule, it guarantees one’s employment and good earnings in the future.

Some people think that the faculties in universities are the only relevant subjects related to science and technology, while others think students should be allowed to pursue their interests and I believe in the latter view.

Sample 11:

Certain people believe that university students should engage in studies driven by their area of interest. On the other hand, some people argue that education should be limited to areas that are functional for a given society such as science and technology since they are expected to result in future gains. Both of these opinions will be explained in this essay. However, I am in favor of the first opinion.

Supporters of the freedom to choose one’s ultimate interests in academics argue that this freedom improves academic delivery because students embrace their studies with passion and dedication. For example, a learner who likes history should be allowed to explore this area instead of making him or her do engineering since preference is the key to success. Also, it emphasizes career inertia representing that the desire for satisfaction should focus on the steady job. Since a given career takes a significant part of a person’s life, it becomes even more crucial to attain a long-lasting intrinsic motivation towards work and productivity.

On the other hand, it is said that students should be steered to fields like science and technology being considered as having a brighter future than arts. This assumption is based on today’s emphasis on employment in these industries, which is perceived to be high. For instance, the search for employment in these areas is considered reasonable because it ensures a secure job and good pay.

In conclusion, there are some who believe that university curricula should be pursued in such a way that they focus on subject areas that would guarantee students an economic return. While some people stand for students choosing their areas of interest and I favor the latter.

Sample 12:

Which subjects should be included in the curriculum at tertiary education seems to be a topic of controversy. While some argue that it would be better for students to be forced into certain key subject areas related to their future career, I believe that they should be at liberty to study whatever they like.

Some arguments can explain the view of studying subjects such as science and technology, which will be useful in the future. Firstly, these courses will provide more employment opportunities for graduates with better salaries, and therefore, students after graduation can have a higher quality of life. Secondly, society can benefit from a youthful labor source in key subject areas. They are well-educated, creative, and physically strong, which fuels new inventions, economic growth, and greater future prosperity.

However, I believe that choosing which subjects to learn at university should be the freedom of students. If students are passionate about what they are learning, they will pay more attention to lessons and grasp more knowledge and skills. Besides, the freedom to pursue the subjects we like creates a diversity of employees, not only in science and technology but also in art, business, tourism, and other sectors. A healthy economy needs such variety. Finally, nobody can predict which areas of knowledge will be most useful to society in the future, and it may be that employers begin to value creative thinking skills above practical or technical skills. If this were the case, perhaps we would need more students of art, history, and philosophy than of science or technology.

In conclusion, despite some arguments for the university to force students to study some particular subjects they think useful in years ahead, I advocate the autonomy to choose whichever we like to learn.

Sample 13:

According to some people, students at universities should pursue what they are most passionate about. Others, however, believe that only those subjects should be allowed, which are relevant to the future, particularly those dealing with science and technology. I will elaborate on both views in the following paragraphs.

It is thought that allowing students to select subjects at the university level would enhance student performance in the classroom and prevent students from studying subjects that they do not enjoy. Students need to be exposed to multiple technology-related courses, but if they are forced to study programming while their interests lie in literature, they probably won’t learn much. The learning process is more interesting for students if they have the opportunity to pick their subjects. Additionally, some students possess talents across a wide variety of fields. If we integrate some cultural and arts subjects into science courses, young people can explore diverse fields. Consequently, this proposed change will provide them with the opportunity to learn more about a variety of subjects and develop new skills.

On the other hand, medical, engineering, and IT courses tend to dominate careers in the arts. People argue for allowing students to study technology-related subjects because they have high employment opportunities after graduation. Innovations are abounding. With the advent of new research areas and subject topics, technologies have become better. By specializing in a specific skill set, graduates may have greater job prospects and get higher-paying jobs, which may lead to a higher standard of living. Therefore, for the sake of students’ better future, they concentrate more on the popular subjects since the employment opportunities will be based on this technical knowledge.

In conclusion, some do not believe in studying only core subjects; however, it is always beneficial to get a strong foundation in them to ensure a successful future.

Sample 14:

In today's fast-paced and ever-changing world, the debate over what university students should study has become a hot topic. Some people argue that students should have the freedom to study whatever they like, while others believe that they should only be allowed to study subjects that will be useful in the future, such as those related to science and technology.

Those who advocate for students to study whatever they like argue that education should be about personal growth and pursuing one's passions. They believe that students will be more motivated to learn and excel in their studies if they are studying something that genuinely interests them. Additionally, they argue that forcing students to study only practical subjects may lead to a lack of creativity and innovation in society. Furthermore, not everyone is cut out for a career in science and technology, and it is important to have a well-rounded and diverse workforce.

On the other hand, proponents of studying only practical subjects argue that the world is rapidly advancing in the fields of science and technology, and it is crucial for the future workforce to have the necessary skills and knowledge to keep up with these advancements. They believe that studying practical subjects will better prepare students for the job market and help them secure well-paying and in-demand jobs. In a highly competitive job market, having a degree in a practical field can make a significant difference in a student's career prospects.

In my opinion, I believe that there should be a balance between allowing students to study what they like and emphasizing the importance of practical subjects. It is essential for students to have the freedom to pursue their passions and interests, as this will lead to a more fulfilling and enjoyable educational experience. However, it is also important to acknowledge the needs of the job market and ensure that students are equipped with the necessary skills to thrive in a rapidly evolving world.

For example, a student who is passionate about history should have the opportunity to study and pursue a career in that field. However, they should also be encouraged to develop skills in critical thinking, problem-solving, and digital literacy, which are valuable in any profession. By striking a balance between passion and practicality, students can cultivate a well-rounded skill set that will benefit them in the future.

In conclusion, while there are valid arguments for both allowing students to study whatever they like and emphasizing practical subjects, I believe that a middle ground is the best approach. This will allow students to pursue their passions while also ensuring that they are well-prepared for the demands of the job market and the future. Ultimately, it is essential to recognize the value of both personal growth and practical skills in a well-rounded education.

Sample 15:

A section of society believes that students pursuing tertiary education should choose a field of study that they are passionate about. While others opine that students should choose subjects that are fruitful in future. I strongly believe that university education should be driven by passion and over the course of this essay will discuss both viewpoints.

There are various reasons why people believe that in case of tertiary education, mind over heart is important. Primary reason is future employability. It is statistically proven that subjects pertaining to science and technology are in high demand and companies pay top dollars to tap students equipped with these skills. For example, in U.S.A it is estimated that by the year 2020, there will be a shortage of manpower to fill in more than 2 million high tech jobs. Therefore, it is important for students to choose subjects that are of economic value. After all, money makes the world spin.

On the other hand, passion is important to succeed in life. Therefore, it is important to choose subjects that invigorate interest. For instance, in U.S.A students who are passionate about sports, pursue it as a discipline in university. Consequently, universities across USA produce world class athletes and sportsmen. It is not a mere coincidence that USA is always at the top of medals tally in Olympics, and all the athletes are from universities. Therefore, it is important to pursue education with enthusiasm; success will eventually follow.

Having considered a range of arguments, I have concluded that, tertiary education should be driven by interest and not economic value. After all, Knowledge is wealth and is always golden in nature.

Sample 16:

Whether university pupils must study areas of their own choices or are unwilling to study career-oriented science and technology, important subjects are widely debated. Both of these perspectives have arguments for and against them, and this essay delves into these views and expresses my opinion before drawing a fair decision.

On the one hand, a university is a maximum citadel for education in a country, and it has considered that it builds the upcoming skillful generation who would lead the country. From this regard, the education and teaching policy of this university affects the entire nation. Some experts have believed that students at the college level should be given individual freedom while choosing majors they research in, and there should not be any predefined syllabus. They opine that forcing them to examine a few most recent subjects for the upcoming employment would make them become employees for offices, not leaders for the nation. They also state that permitting them to study a vast selection of subjects would make them a lot more knowledgeable and willing to take struggles, and this coverage would inspire tertiary degree pupils to follow their dream instead of just blindly running for their career. What is more, society needs as many artists as it does scientists. Forcing university students to research just science and teach related subjects would create an imbalance in our society.

On the contrary, the university authority must think about the consequences of letting students choose their subjects. This is an alarming issue, and this is why the university authority needs to think twice before executing the policy. Additional growth of a nation, these days, highly depends on the technologically sound workforce, and universities should yield such a workforce for the nation. From this perspective, it appears very logical for universities to educate science-related topics to most students.

To complete, universities have to take into account the advantages and disadvantages of any policy adopted, including whether the pupils are free to pick their subjects or not. I believe that allowing university pupils prefer their topics have far more benefits and seem more logical in a wider sense.

Sample 17:

University students will lead to different important sectors in a few years, and consequently, their education is one of the essential facets of a country. It is frequently debated how much liberty they should be given while deciding upon the subjects, and I believe that they ought to have the freedom to pick subjects within a prescribed syllabus, not everything they enjoy.

To start with, the liberty of choosing subjects in college degree would make the education more successful and would not induce students to study subjects they do not have any interest in any way. Though technology-related topics are rather important, students would not learn that much if he is forced to understand programming while their interest is in literature. Hence a student should be given the liberty to pick the topics he likes, particularly for college students. For instance, many arts faculties in western universities provide students to select technology-related subjects, while the reverse is also true.

Nevertheless, absolute liberty to pick subjects for college students is not a good idea too. This will often result in situations when students will not know some crucial aspects of the career. Some pupils would misuse this facility and decide on the very same subjects in various semesters. It will also cause an unexpected situation as most of the pupils would love to study the same subjects, and the university jurisdiction would not be able to offer these courses to all.

In conclusion, certain liberty while choosing subjects at the college level is very helpful for students’ total development and comprehension enhancement. However, absolute liberty could make the results worse.

Sample 18:

Academicians are split on the issue that how much freedom pupils should be given in choosing university courses. While many opine that students ought to study science and technology-related subjects, which pave the way for their future careers, I subscribe to the view that learners should be given complete liberty to select the subject they love and feel interested in.

On the one hand, there is a myriad of reasons why tertiary students ought to only study subjects that will prove useful in the future. The most compelling reason is that this will provide students with countless windows of opportunity to seek a prestigious job after completing graduation. For instance, in the USA, graduates can earn a handsome salary if they work as a scientist or programmers. Apart from it, emphasizing science and technology studies in universities will accelerate the pace of technological innovations, thereby stimulating economic growth in the long run.

On the other hand, I would readily concur with the notion of letting adult students select whatever subjects they like as it will help students attain brilliant academic performance when they have a passion for learning. Take my friend Robin as an example; instead of selecting science and technology, he just took a business administration course and has managed to carve a niche for himself as a specialist in the Human Resource Management arena. Besides, offering a broad range of courses at the tertiary level is crucial for any society. A case in point is Social Science which is of utmost importance in areas like social care, business, and the justice system, to mention but a few.

To conclude, it seems reasonable to assume that while science and technology are no doubt important, the importance of other subjects should not be ignored as these subjects also play a vital role in individual life and society as a whole. So tertiary students should be given the freedom to learn subjects they feel passionate about.

Sample 19:

Education plays a crucial role in shaping individuals’ knowledge, skills, and future prospects. The question of whether university students should have the freedom to study subjects of their choice or be restricted to practical and job-oriented disciplines is a topic of hot debate. This essay will discuss both viewpoints and present arguments in favour of allowing students to study whatever they like.

Proponents of allowing university students to study subjects of their choice argue that it fosters passion, motivation, and personal growth. When students have the freedom to pursue their interests, they are more likely to be engaged and enthusiastic about their studies. This intrinsic motivation can lead to deeper learning and the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills. For instance, a student with a passion for history may excel in their chosen field, contributing to research and scholarship that expands our understanding of the past. If we force her to study chemistry, for example, she may end up dropping out of her major.

Moreover, studying diverse subjects cultivates well-rounded individuals with a broad range of knowledge and perspectives. A balanced education that includes humanities, arts, and social sciences alongside science and technology provides students with a comprehensive understanding of the world. This interdisciplinary approach encourages creativity, empathy, and the ability to think beyond conventional boundaries. It also equips students with transferable skills, such as effective communication, teamwork, and adaptability, which are highly valued in today’s rapidly changing job market. Furthermore, the notion that students should only focus on science and technology-related subjects neglects the importance of other disciplines in society. Fields such as literature, philosophy, and the arts contribute to cultural enrichment, social cohesion, and personal well-being. Restricting students to practical subjects may limit their intellectual development and neglect the holistic education necessary for a thriving society.

In conclusion, while arguments can be made for the practicality of studying subjects related to science and technology, it is crucial to recognize the benefits of allowing university students to study whatever they like. By providing students with the freedom to explore a diverse range of subjects, we empower them to become lifelong learners, critical thinkers, and contributors to society.

Sample 20:

It is a common belief that the university should be a place where students learn subjects related to helpful skills like science and technology. However, there is a more persuasive opinion that students have to learn what they really like from universities because it will assist the overall development of society.

On the one hand, there is an argument that universities should teach only futuristic subjects such as science and technology, which can immensely provide industrial leap to each country. This is because those fields are highly regarded with the technological power of each country. Then the investment of universities will lead each country to become competitive countries in the future. For example, it is a well-known fact that Korea has grown really fast for the last half-century due to the development of information technology, which allowed Korea to get out of the ‘underdeveloped country’ from OECD in this year. As a result, it seems plausible that focusing on these fields by universities will contribute to strengthening the power of each country.

Nevertheless, it seems more persuasive that universities should dispense students diverse kinds of subjects hoped to study by them. This education system would offer opportunities for each society to be developed overall due to the improvement of different sectors of work. Individually selected subjects by students in universities would bear talented people in various workplaces. For instance, France has kept its college system for a long time, which has organized each university or college own prestigious to have own name value for different scholarly fields. This policy is appraised as a boosting method to breed outstanding people in a variety of fields in society.

To sum up, although countries can enhance their industrial field through allowing universities to teach students about subjects related to technological fields, it is undeniable that it is more important for each university to offer what students really want. This is because it makes balanced industrial improvement for each country.

Sample 21:

The debate over whether college students should be allowed to major in whatever they want or forced to focus on practical fields of study has emerged. This essay will examine both perspectives and offer my own judgement on the subject.

According to proponents of unrestricted choice, allowing students to study subjects of their choosing fosters individuality, creativity, and enthusiasm for education. According to them, students perform best when they are authentically interested in the subject matter. In addition, unrestricted choice permits students to explore diverse disciplines, acquire a well-rounded education, and discover their true talents and passions.

On the other hand, proponents of a focus on practical and future-oriented subjects argue that scarce resources should be allocated to fields that have a direct impact on society and the job market. They contend that encouraging students to pursue science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields can address skill gaps, improve employability, and contribute to national development. They stress the significance of aligning education with labour market requirements.

A balanced approach is essential, in my opinion. In addition to allowing students to choose their courses based on their interests and aspirations, universities should provide guidance and resources to ensure a well-rounded education. Students can make informed decisions about their academic pursuits if they are encouraged to engage in interdisciplinary learning and provided with career guidance.

In addition, universities can implement flexible curricula that enable students to select a combination of courses that correspond to their interests and future objectives. This approach would establish a balance between individual choice and the acquisition of necessary skills and knowledge.

In conclusion, despite the fact that the freedom to choose university subjects fosters individuality and a passion for learning, practical considerations should not be neglected. Students can receive a well-rounded education and improve their future prospects through a balanced approach that combines personal interests with the development of marketable skills.