Some people think that universities should provide graduates with the knowledge and skills needed in workplace. Others believe that the true function of universities should be to give access to knowledge for its own sake, regardless of whether the course

University education acts as a precursor for a future career and this is why there has been a long debate over the type of education at universities. Some people claim that, universities would rather provide specific knowledge for students while others are against of this and support the idea of having general knowledge for every student.

Firstly, we have to acknowledge that, not every subject catches every student’s eyes. For example, a law student wants to become a professional human rights defender in future life, why to force him to study business law? In addition, it is loss of time and squandering money in vain and consequently both teachers and students suffer from this mismanagement.

Secondly, there is such a rule in some developed countries that, universities provide general knowledge for every student during their first year. Afterwards students are separated into subgroups and in this way they get familiar with every subject and choose their field wherein the plan to be majored. A history student, for example, has general knowledge about the world history and the history of his own country which is the most interesting part for him.

In addition, a glance at the statistics reveals that, most professionals emerges in developed countries where universities provide basic knowledge and skills for their students which creates a number of avenues for them in future career.

To summarize, taking both sets of arguments I am highly convinced that, universities should provide specific knowledge and skills for students that can afford students better workplaces, all in all better future career.