In recent years, arguments on whether academic subjects or non-academic subjects should be taught in schools, irrespective of student’s background, have emerged as a topic of interest. Although the positive influences of bias on students’ preferable subjects, the returns of studying both kinds of subjects will do more good than harm.
On the one hand, learning academic subjects determinedly appears to benefit the students both individuals and society. On the individual level, students who have basic and advanced social and scientific knowledge cultivated from schools will have more chances to find a suitable career. In fact, without academic information, such as math and language, graduate students absolutely fail to join the high-level labor force. On the community level, an employment market filled with qualified employees who have a solid foundation in academia will definitely be more productive and dynamic. This may act as a precursor to not only a thriving economy but also a civilized society.
On the other hand, non-academic subjects are valid for all students, especially those who have potential talents, such as musical and athletic subjects. At present, students with an intensive academic schedule can de-stress themselves by doing some physical activities. The consequences would be greatly helpful to students’ emotional health and long-term life balance. Besides, students endowed with remarkable and natural talents cannot expose themselves without being discovered. Non-academic subject teachers have more chances to nurture gifted students so they can achieve their full potential.
In conclusion, despite the significant contribution of academics to civilization, non-academic subjects are at the same time needed to be taught in school to comprehensively raise a new generation of students. Investment in both fields of academic and non-academic will cost both individuals and society, though this practice is worth considering when living and intellectual standard reaches a certain extent.