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. In developing and suppo

The issue is whether educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed. I disagree with this line of thinking, particularly for the choice of verb, dissaude. I believe educational institutions have a responsibility to inform not dissuade students about their likelihood of success in a field of study. I will proceed to clarify why this is my stance.

Dissuading students implies a form of purposeful demotivation. I believe this to be the wrong course of action. Students choose fields for several reasons: spour of the moment; employability; perculiar event in one's past. Some of these reasons are particularly strong and important to a person, while other reasons may be of lesser importance. Assuming an individual decides to study neurobiology because someone dear to such an individual passed away due to a related disease, it would be almost callous for an institution to purposely demotivate such an individual from taking studies in such a field. Given the large power imbalance between an institution and a student, purposeful dissuasion might almost be considered tyranical.

It is for this reason I would rather posit that the responsibility of an institution is to inform an individual of her/his chances of success. Chances of a student's success in a field from the perspective of an institution are dependent on the institution, and the student. In any given field, modern institutions can trace the trajectory of its previous students. If the institution does not have a track record of producing successful graduates in such a field, it would be particularly helpful to inform graduates of this fact. Leading on from this, I would argue, it should be a responsibility of the institution to inform the student of its track record in the given field.

Institutions also have records which allow them to correlate a student's past accomplishment with her/his future success in a field. If based on these records, an individual's chances of success are low, it is incumbent on the institution to inform the individual. This can only be considered helpful advice. If for instance, an individual's choice of field was a decision made in the spour of the moment, this might lead the individual to reconsider her/his decision. In the case of an individual who has a strong interest in further study within the given field, this should help the individual prepare better to face the challenges ahead.

The argument for informing students of their chances of success based on the student's history and the institution's record should be a responsibility of educational institutions. If educational institution consider students as cash cows to be milked for their resources without giving cause to the success of students, then this would lead to worse outcomes for society. But better informed students can make better informed choices which have a higher chance of success. This ideally would lead to a better society. Put this way, it appears one of the purported key roles of educational institutions would be enhanced by educational institutions informing students of their chances of success in a particular field of study.

In conclusion, success is dependent on a variety of factors, but with the data most educational institutions possess, educational institutions can provide some insight to students about their chances of success in a given field. Should institutions be responsible for dissuading students from participation in a field? No, that, in many circumstances, wouldbe wholly unfair to the student. But should it inform students of their chances of success? For the reasons laid out in the preceding paragraphs, I believe this should be its responsibility.