Currently, there is a debate about two education systems for students. The main difference between both is the number of subjects that they have to pass at the age of fifteen or before they leave school. Overall, the difference owing to one of them stablishes a limited range of subjects, while the other does not request a limited range.
In regard to benefits, the main benefit about the system that does not request a number of subjects, is that it has a relation with the right that its purpose is the free election. For instance, in Peru, the education system controls the basic subjects that are necessary to learning in schools, however, if parents or children want to explore other subjects such as art, physics, and others, they can buy a book or search on the internet for information. As a result, teenagers can develop other skills and knowledges that with the elemental subjects, teenagers and future professionals will not be able to learn.
On the other hand, unlike the first system, the education system that stablish a limited range of subjects from the age of fifteen is controversial, because of only socialist countries endeavour to control the education of their citizens. For instance, Cuba has a regulation that requires 6 subjects in all grades, and it is possible owing to the country does not have commercial relation with other countries, this helps to the idea of control from the president, because children and youngsters don’t know that there are different knowledge.
In conclusion, there is a notable difference between the systems, and overall the effects on the development of knowledge. From my point of view, a system with wide range of subjects is better than system with limited range of subjects from the age of fifteen or before that they leave school.