Some people believe that universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study. Others believe that universities should not force students to take any courses other than those that will help prepare th

The main goal of tertiary education is to create a highly qualified professional. However, how should those institutions build their educational programs? On the one hand, we have a widespread belief that universities ought to force all students to take a variety of courses outside the major field of students' study. On the other hand, we have an assumption that those students should be forced to study only courses which will prepare them for future jobs in their fields. Both prospects has their merits, therefore, as far as I am concerned a combination of both approaches will give a sufficient result. The reasons of my stance will be discussed in details below.

To begin with, in many countries such as Russian Federation students have no opportunity to pick additional courses to their major field. An educational program has rigid structure where all subjects, their content and volume of hours are written. This approach has some undoubtable advantages, for instance, the policy guarantees that a student who wants to become a surgeon will have the same knowledge about major fields as another student who pursues a degree in the opposite side of the country. For instance, in the 1980s was a widespread practice when graduate students were sent to other cities and towns where those specialists were needed. Because all alumnae had the same experience and knowledge they were able to adapt to new conditions of employment and worked well. Unfortunately, this approach has some negative aftermaths as well, perhaps, the gravest one is that students were passive and did not strive to knowledge because in the existing system they were an object not subjects of educational process.

By contrast, the second policy does not have this disadvantage. In other words, the fact, that students have an opportunity to choose courses which are in agreement with one's interests or intentions encourages them to acquire knowledge and actively participate to their educational process. It is difficult to underestimate the positive effect of this policy on students desire to learn and acquire knowledge. Moreover, the policy may give a student a possibility to adapt existing program to his or her personal needs. For example, a student who is going to work abroad may pick courses which prepare him for future adventure. An American student, who wants to work in France, may take additional language course and learn more about the culture of the future place of work. Unfortunately, the policy has some negative aftermaths as well. For instance, if the variety of outside courses will be burdensome, students will struggle to absorb well the information from their major courses.

As a result, we may aver that neither of proposed policies is an ideal; however, their combination may be close to it enough. For instance, if students are not forced to take a variety of courses outside the field but have this opportunity to do so, the combination of policies may work better than proposed ones. This policy will be flexible enough to encourage students to be active in their endeavor for knowledge and at the same time, it will allow some gifted students to concentrate their attention only on their field of study if they choose so.

In conclusion, both proposed policies have their merits and drawbacks; however, the combination of them will be flexible enough to get rid of disadvantages and keep advantages.