Nowadays, an important part of university students would like studying more than their major fields of studies. However, this voluntee is not shared by alls, other peoples think that students should be focused on their main subjects to get a qualification and a job. This essay will discuss merits and demerits from these two opinions and ultimately will demonstrate the necessity to favor main studies which can allow to get an employment.
On one hand, proponents consider that university bring more culture and knowledge for students. Consequently, university students should learn about many subjects and follow multidiscplinaries programs. For instance, in this case history students could also follow classes concerning economy or law. The multiplication of subjects could improve students’ level and help them to be more open-minded.
On the other hand, critics assure that the development of different types of area of studies weaken the insertion of students in labour market. From their point of view, there is no necessity to addition many subjects of studies because if students were not focused on their main area they would lost skills. For example, studies such as art or sociology are criticized because they wouldn’t ensure good probabilities to get a job.
Personally, I believe that the first purpose of university students should get a job which would matched with their aspirations and knowledge. Consequently, if students have to learn more about other area of studies to guarantee their insertion on the labor market they should reinforce their culture with additional classes. A good illustration is the job of of energy engineer which necessit to be taught in mathematics and physics but also to improve knowledge in geopolitics and international law.
To conclude, multiplication of areas of studies has advantageous and disavantageous outcomes. Even tough, in my opinion, students could learn about other subjects but that doesn’t disturb their chances to get jobs.