Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim.

From the very beginning itself, educational institutions are given the stature of the temples of learning. When a child is born, the first thing that strikes a parent’s mind is what he/she is going to be after so and so years? How to lay down a strong foundation as to make his/her life successful? They tend to send their children to the top-notch institutions, be it schools at primary age or Universities at secondary age. Educational institutions have a pivotal role to play in a student’s life.

Yes, Educational institutions are definitely burdened by the responsibility of umpteen students that are admitted and promised to be guided or educated from time to time. All institutes are likely to fulfill their assigned duties, as they have been doing for ages. Now, the first question that strikes our mind is what exactly the educational institution should focus on- interest-based learning algorithm or the long-term success rate of students? From the above statement, the author focuses on the long-term success rate of the students rather than interest-based learning algorithm. As per author, students shouldn’t be allowed to pursue courses in which they are likely to fail. This is rather obscure and a little controversial statement. How can anyone predict the success or failure rate so much in advance? Who gave them the power to decide that a less probable field of study is definitely going to delve a student into failure?

I strongly disagree with the author’s thoughts. If we consider this to be true, Institutions are likely to become more of money hoarders rather than temples of learning, landing you into a guaranteed success after a couple of years. They would rather start offering selective courses in only those fields of study that are going to offer vibrant job opportunities and diminish the rest. For instance, let’s consider the current scenario, today people are running behind technology and almost everybody is pursuing a career in either engineering, science or technology. Does that mean all educational institutions should eradicate the courses related to fine arts and humanities? No. What if the majority of the population is not pursuing it, there still exist people who are phenomenal dancers and want to pursue dance more than just a hobby, irrespective of the success factor. There still exist people who are tremendously passionate about cooking and tend to make it their everyday deal. Although the success factor in all these fields of study is not very high, they still remain non-trivial roles in our society. If all students are likely to become tech-savvy, then whose is going to bring innovation to these fields of study?

Educational institutions definitely have the responsibility to bolster a student’s interest and help him/her achieve an all new level of expertise in whatever field of study is germane to his/her interest. They hold the responsibility to help students choose a right career path for themselves on the basis of their profound interest and profitability both rather than compelling them to opt for only lucrative fields of study. This would not only help them to learn and achieve more but ultimately make them successful. As it is rightly said, no work is tedious if you enjoy doing it. Similar is the scenario for students, if they tend to opt for courses that they enjoy studying, they are more likely to excel and have a brighter future. We must never forget that interest drives innovation and innovation drives success. Hence, interest-based learning comes before long-term success rate, when we talk about a student’s perusal of a particular field of study and his plausibility to succeed in the same. It isn’t that I am discarding the success factor completely, it’s just that I am prioritizing the two to help a student achieve magnanimously in the long run.