Some education systems make students focus on certain subjects at the age of 15, while others require students to study a wide range of subjects until they leave school. What are the benefits of each system? Which is better?

In today’s world, school attendance has played a vital role in children’s later success. In order to become the elite, more students have embarked on learning a wide variety of subjects

instead

of spending more time on other activities. While both ways have their own merits, I believe that concentrating only on core subjects have a better influence on the young generation. On the one hand, it is no exaggeration to say that pursuing traditional education enables the attendees to access a wide range of knowledge needed in their careers. Having attended more classes, learners will develop more ideas in various fields, which is conducive to achieve their ultimate goals.

For example

, Vietnamese pupils with good educational background are able to be entitled to tertiary education with their

favorite

something regarded with special favor or liking

favourite

majors.

Therefore

, they will undoubtedly be more competitive to seek their

first

ideal jobs.

On the other hand

, paying less time at school could

also

bring several beneficial consequences to them.

Instead

of contemplating intense study schedules, teenagers have more times to enrich their life experiences.

This

means that affordability, creativity, collaborative skills

are

Suggestion

is

likely to be derived from social activity.

Furthermore

, youngsters ought to use their

times

Suggestion

time

to relieve pressure and recharge energies for better performances.

For instance

, American professors have indicated that balancing life would boost the working process, which is relevant to young learners. In conclusion, I completely subscribe to the idea that engaging majorly in core subjects should be fostered in order to achieve human’s full

potentials

Suggestion

potential

.