Many students have to study subjects which they do not like. This is a complete waste of time?

Many students have to study subjects which they do not like. Some people think this is a complete waste of time. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? 

In today's competitive world, a broad knowledge is needed to succeed in any field. Therefore, I disagree that it is a waste of time if students study subjects which are not of their interest. 

Let us first examine the reasons why some people hold the opinion that students should not have to study all the subjects and should be allowed to choose the subjects they want to study. They opine that in this case the students will probably be more enthusiastic about their study. In addition, if students are forced to study all subjects, they can easily lose interest in education. What is more, if all subjects are compulsory for studying, students will not have enough time to learn all of them properly therefore they will be constantly under a lot of pressure. 

However, I believe all subjects are of great importance and for the holistic development of the students they need to study all subjects equally at school level.  Later on, during admission to the colleges, students can select the subjects of their choice and can explore them further. At that age they are mature enough to decide their subjects for themselves. At school level the student may not know what his real interests are. 

Furthermore, nowadays, the job market is very demanding and the recruiters select students who are skilled in various fields. Having the basic knowledge of varied subjects during school time definitely widens the horizons for the students. To add to it, it is a well known fact that most subjects are related to each other in some way or the other. For example, a basic knowledge of mathematics is needed to excel in computer languages. Finally, I believe that it is up to the teachers to develop interest of the students in any subject. For instance, during my school days, my history teacher was so good that a boring subject like history was the favourite subject of the whole class. 

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, students should learn all subjects at school level as they are not mature enough to know their real interests at school level and a broad knowledge is also needed for their holistic development.  

Everyone should stay in school until the age of eighteen?

Everyone should stay in school until the age of eighteen. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 

In many countries, school attendance is mandatory for all children up to a specific age. In India this is 14 years of age. In the UK and many other countries it is 16, although the UK government now has plans to raise the school leaving age to 18. I agree that children should be in school till the age of 18. In the following paragraphs, I intend to put forth my arguments to support my views. 

The most important reason for raising the school leaving age to 18 is that, the age of 14-18 is the most impressionable age of a child’s life. During this period of adolescence, the children undergo physical and hormonal changes because of which they are under a lot of pressure. Therefore, lengthening compulsory schooling helps protect childhood. While at school students will be protected from some of the pressures in life. They have the rest of adulthood to work, make budgets balance and make choices. Providing them with space to grow for as long as possible can make them better prepared for adult life. 

Secondly, more education provides the opportunity to acquire more skills and therefore more options. It has been shown many times that those with more education find it easier to find work and that they are more likely to find that work satisfying. What is more, raising the school-leaving age is a crucial investment in society's future. Doing so increases the economic potential of the future workforce, and so will bring increased tax revenues in the long term. 

However, the opponents claim that extending the period of compulsory education requires a huge investment in teachers, books and new school buildings which would be very expensive. They also say that many families need their children to make an economic contribution to the family income and working early can help these families to survive.  Finally, just being in school does not guarantee that a student is learning. Unwilling students become disruptive and damage the education of others in their class.  

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, as every garden has weeds, similarly compulsory schooling also has some drawbacks. However, these drawbacks are nothing as compared to the vast benefits this approach would bring and the cost needed to implement would be negligible if compared to the huge economic potential of the future workforce. Therefore, I believe that everyone should stay in school until the age of eighteen.

Government should allow students to pay fee after graduation or students are responsible for it or totally free education?

Government should allow students to pay fee after graduation or students are responsible for it or totally free education? Which one is the best?
---

 Higher education, especially tertiary one, is the aim of most people, but not all obtain easily. Therefore, some believe with government’s free education or allowance for students to pay fee after graduation, mor...e people can make this dream come true while others claim that by paying himself, knowledge will be definitely taken seriously. Each view has its pros and cons, actually.

The first benefit of the policy of emancipating students from financial payment during their learning time is to achieve the ultimate goal of the society i.e. a high-skilled labor. It is undeniable that several countries, say, Germany and Northeastern nations, often free their university education, which partly explains why they have the highest self-awareness and the most knowledgeable citizens. On other hand, others argue that private education in which students are heavily charged offers the best condition for students in learning with the top-notch professors and cutting edge innovations, as reflected in the case of Havard, Yale and Cambridge non state-owned schools. Equally important, let’s take Vietnam as a stark example of an education which frees students from learning in education, and not until they graduate do they move to other fields in search of high-paid salaries, which, again, bespeaks itself the unwise investment by government.

Second, it is contended that free education creates a level-playing field for everyone. It is well known that because of abject poverty, the disadvantaged and impoverished can hardly gain access to advanced education and end up with their big dreams unfinished while other eager adult learners, due to being burdened with numerous responsibilities from taking care of their parents to their own families, are reluctant to short-cut their formal training and become normal blue-workers with lower salaries. Also, no sooner are outstanding students less worried with high fee of tertiary education than their desire for knowledge materializes. However, it is equally necessary to take into consideration other cases. With families whose income is relatively high, as a result of being exempt from education, would it be fair? Another point is that so easily accessible is higher education that people may take it for granted, and hence, drop out for no reason while others who see education as expensive and competitive try their best to do part-time jobs to cover their expense, find it worthy for their effort and nurture other crucial living skills, such as, team-work, pressure dealing, right at the moment of being a students.

The third view, different from two above, is that students should still pay, but only after their graduation. Pros of this are well seen when economic burden is still liberated from poor and distinguished students who, after graduation, are likely to obtain prestigious jobs with high salaries, feel indebted to government and even decide to make big donations in the projects of upgrading infrastructure or setting up scholarship schemes for those in the same boat as them. Obama is a telling example of a person who borrowed money from government to follow advanced education in Havard law school and now becomes a prominent politician. However, when it comes to the issue of management, the question remains as to how government could effectively control the flow of students in and out after graduation, keep exhaustive records of their performance to make sure fee will be paid back in time. Another reason is that to indentify clearly the right target receives to deserve this policy is a head-aching matter, as a result of the fact that some mercenary ones whose income is rather abundant still want to take advantage for their personal gain.

In brief, each method has its own pains and gains, and the most superior solution, I believe, is that fee payment should be mandatory, and for the less lucky ones, scholarships or other kinds of financial aid are available for them to realize their goal through their endeavor