Some people called for diverting schools’ curriculum to practical and vocational subjects, such as mathematics, instead of classics, for instance, history, to improve graduates’ employment prospects. The following disquisition delves into their hypothetical presumption, offers an insight into my perspective, and subsequently elaborate why I emphatically disagree with it.
Advocates for giving more importance to applied skills, provided a number of invalid hypotheses to support their outlook. Firstly, they had a standpoint that the labour market demands have changed, as jobs requires more graduates with vocational skills than classics. Secondly, humanities have no advantages to the state’s economy or society. Notwithstanding, I find them those claims fundamentally flawed.
There is no doubt that a traditional syllabus, namely history has its own benefits. To illustrate, history has numerous beneficial outcomes on both economy, besides society. First and foremost, it benefits the economy inasmuch as it relates the local culture, helps in preserving the heritage, consequently developing and exploiting usage of them. Culture tourism is a significant exemplar of that, which provides a wide range of jobs directly and indirectly in different industrial sectors, for instance services. Ultimately, it teaches wisdom, encourages critical thinking, likewise, it is the collective knowledge of the past, without it, no society can find its right path to the future, thus, it would be determined to repeat its past mistakes. Hence, it has a profound impact and implications on the society.
To conclude, there is an outlook recommends redirecting efforts, together with financial means from classics, for instance history to practical skills, in a perception that would help graduates find better jobs. I find adverse drawbacks to such hypothesis and believe it is fundamentally incorrect. Moreover, it will have drastic implications on the conscience of society.